OSHA Inspection: 24/7 ENVIRO SOLUTIONS

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,696 · Current $2,587 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1): A written respiratory protection program that included the provisions in 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(1)(i) - (ix) with worksite specific procedures was not established and implemented for required respirator use: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from respirator use and asbestos exposure, in that the employer had not fully implemented a written respiratory protection program with worksite specific procedures. Deficiencies in program implementation were identified in elements including but not limited to medical evaluation, fit testing, workplace evaluations, records of medical evaluations, and records of fit testing.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1): The employer did not provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards in that the employer did not annually provide a medical evaluation to determine each employee's ability to use a respirator. Medical evaluation status of temporary/"transient" employees was not verified by the employer.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(f)(2): Employee(s) using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirator, and at least annually thereafter: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards in that employees using tight-fitting facepiece respirators were not fit tested prior to initial use of the respirators, and at least annually thereafter. Fit test status of temporary/"transient" employees was not verified by the employer.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(l)(1): Evaluations of the workplace were not conducted to ensure the written respiratory protection program was being effectively implemented:  (Construction Reference 1926.103)  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards in that the respiratory protection program was not annually evaluated to ensure it was effectively implemented.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(m)(1): Records of medical evaluations required by 29 CFR 1910.134 were not retained and made available in accordance with 1910.1020: (Construction Reference 1926.103)  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from respirator use and asbestos exposure, in that the employer had not retained and made available records of medical evaluations.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.134(m)(2)(i): The employer did not establish a record of the qualitative and quantitative fit tests administered to an employee which included the information required by 29 CFR 1910.134(m)(2)(i)(A) through (m)(2)(i)(E): (Construction Reference 1926.103)  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from respirator use and asbestos exposure, in that the employer had not established a record of the qualitative and quantitative fit tests administered to an employee which included the information required by 29 CFR 1910.134(m)(2)(i)(A) through (m)(2)(i)(E).

Issued

May 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,696 · Current $2,587 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(1)(i): Where exposure monitoring was required under 29 CFR 1926.1101, the employer did not perform monitoring to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of asbestos to which employees were or potentially were exposed:  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from asbestos exposure, in that the employer had not performed monitoring to determine accurately the airborne concentrations of asbestos to which employees were exposed.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(2)(i): The employer with a work operation covered by the asbestos standard did not ensure that a "competent person" conducted an exposure assessment immediately before or at the initiation of the operation to ascertain expected exposures during that operation or workplace:  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from asbestos exposure, in that the employer had not ensured  that a "competent person" conducted an exposure assessment immediately before or at the initiation of the operation to ascertain expected exposures during that operation or workplace.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(f)(3)(i): The employer failed to conduct daily monitoring that was representative of the exposure of each employee assigned to work in regulated areas and performing Class I or II work: Note:  Employers who complete a negative exposure assessment in accordance with paragraph (f)(2)(iii) do not need to conduct the daily monitoring for activity covered by the assessment.  At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards from asbestos exposure, in that the employer had not conducted  daily monitoring that was representative of the exposure of each employee assigned to work in regulated areas and performing Class I or II work.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $3,696 · Current $2,587 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(1)(i)(A): The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who for a combined total of 30 or more days per year are engaged in Class I, II and III work or are exposed at or above a permissible exposure limit:   At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards. The employer did not institute a medical surveillance program for all employees who for a combined total of 30 or more days per year are engaged in Class I, II and III work or are exposed at or above a permissible exposure limit.

Issued

May 10, 2018

Abate by

Jun 14, 2018

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(2)(i): The employer did not make available medical examinations and consultations to each employee covered under 29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(1)(i) on the following schedules in 29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(1)(i)(A) through 29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(1)(i)(E):   At a jobsite located at 740 NW Blue Parkway, Lees Summit, Missouri, employees were exposed to respiratory hazards. The employer did not make available medical examinations and consultations to each employee covered under 29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(1)(i) on the following schedules in 29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(1)(i)(A) through 29 CFR 1926.1101(m)(1)(i)(E).